D&D 5E Surprisingly Lethal Side Effect of Multiattack

[Uller]

DMs should play monsters based on what motivates the monsters (or NPC). Not on what is more or less lethal to PCs. If a DM wants to 'win' by killing PCs, he can.

Undead are driven by hatred of the living. A ghoul takes down one a PC to 0 hp, then it's next attack should be on that PC. But some undead are just mindless and attack whatever is standing in front of them.

A predator might go for a grapple to pull away it's food where it can safely eat.

Most humanoids are fighting first and foremost to live. If a target drops, they aren't going to keep wailing on that target any more than the PCs do unless they have a reason to. They will turn to the next biggest threat that they can incapacitate. If a healer is present, maybe they will try to make sure an unconscious PC "stays down", but that means playing humanoids as if they optimize their tactics for fighting adventuring parties. Do your humanoids commonly fight against enemies that have a healer? If not then they probably wouldn't immediately optimize for it.

An NPC with a vendetta against a particular PC or one that is hoping to kill one or two PCs and then flee might go for the kill shot against an unconscious target.

Typically rolling multiple attacks at once is nothing more than a convenience for when it doesn't matter. But once decisions about what the next target will be have to be made, I typically make one attack at a time.

Also a question a DM has to answer...do NPCs/Monsters typically get death saves or is 0 hp dead. If 0 hp is dead for a monster then monsters probably shouldn't assume that a PC at 0 hp is still alive.

 

[S'mon]

My monsters are trying to win, so with the default death rules they'll normally keep attacking downed PCs to try to finish them off. In one campaign though I use negative hp, die at negative
max hp, no death saves. In that game it's hard to cure up a downed ally during a fight so monsters will leave off beating on downed PCs, lessening the death rate. Works very well.

 

[Saeviomagy]

You don't have to declare attacks before you take them, and you can even move in between attacks.

I would expect most intelligent humanoids would stop attacking a downed foe UNLESS they know there's a healer present, in which case they'll finish off downed targets. However I wouldn't put it past a cowardly goblin or kobold or the like to spend an action stabbing someone who's downed just to avoid having to enter the front line of combat while still looking good. I also wouldn't put it past some grandstanding opponents to do something similar, but with the intent of drawing more attention. But their primary motivation is to win the fight, and finishing off downed opponents is usually left to after a battle.

I would expect beasts are either trying to drive the PCs off (and will make attacks against the most convenient target, but won't pursue if they retreat), or are trying to eat (and will down a target, then pick them up and run off with them).

Simple uncontrolled undead will keep attacking a downed foe. A skeleton hates all life, and doesn't discriminate between moving and unmoving life forms. Zombies are the same.

Smarter undead will have an agenda. Ghouls want to eat you, so they'll spread attacks out to drive the party off, then eat any paralysed foes.

Constructs and controlled undead have some sort of rules. "Kill any intruders" will lead to them finishing off downed foes.

 

[Motorskills]

Underpower your baddies, but play them as hard as you can, assuming that fits their motivation.

Be open with your players. Pre-arrange (OOC), an option or two for managing TPKs. Maybe the PCs are part of a guild, with many members that can pick up where these guys left off. Create new characters, or simply re-skin the old ones.
Maybe you will agree to allow one free re-do every now and again...or maybe even every time...a straightforward re-wind.

 

[Xeviat]

Spread out the attacks amongst multiple characters, even if that provokes opportunity attacks from your players.

Throw some grapples and shoves (away to disrupt player positioning, down to make the follow up attack more reliable, yet less lethal) just to mix it up a bit.

This reminded me of how I do it. If I'm using a high CR monster or two as a solo/elite style encounter, then I spread attacks out. It allows me to make a monster challenge the entire party without gibbing one. I just had an encounter with some house built "Greenspawn Razorfiends", and I even "wasted" a few attacks on the player's horses (nothing like a one shot decapitating a horse to make someone fear a monster).

If I later use the monster against higher level PCs, I can focus fire so they still feel threatening. This is one of the hidden strengths of 5E monster design.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[machineelf]

Which then leads to the party panicking, and trying to get the now one save off dying PC back on their feet before their turn.

Sounds like a lot of fun. I bet your players had a great time in that battle. Conflict is the key to a good story, and trying desperately to save a friend's life in the middle of a fight is great conflict.

I also am of the mindset that D&D can often be too safe for characters at times, so throwing them some scares is a job well done.

 

[Caliban]

And then of course, you have the DM's who pride themselves on how many characters they've killed, and laugh when they down a PC. So much fun.

 

[Flamestrike]

If you're going to do it do it properly.

If the first attack drops a PC, then all remaining attacks are made with advantage (thanks to the PC being prone and incapacitated). Meaning you cant roll all the attacks at once.

The other issue with rolling them all at once is synching them. Does the 3d12 damage attack hit first, or does the 2d8 damage attack hit first?

Roll them one at a time. But yeah, if you want to wail on downed PCs go for it. Its a bit of a douche move to do in my books as a general rule. Maybe every now and again to keep the PCs on their toes.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Generally everybody having fun should have higher priority than realism.

Also as the others said, it's actually quite reasonable to go for the standing enemies first rather than finishing of an unconscious foe.

Hell, I might even spread my two multi-attacks on two different targets and still reasonably explain that the fighter has to watch both enemies next to him and consequently spread both his attacks on different targets to keep an overview.

 

[pemerton]

If a monster is mart enough to kill a player, why wouldn't they? What benefit comes to a monster from spreading out his damage?

Well, if one of your enemies is down (either dead or unconscious - and what monster is stopping in the heat of battle to find out?) then maybe the monster has a reason to turn its attention to a still-active foe.

Also, are hp a real thing in the game, or more of a "scorekeeping" device? If the latter, then the monster knowsthat it can drop anyone with a good, solid hit,; the function of the hp tally is simply to track the depletion of the PC's luck, divine favour, endurance etc (so that being dropped to zero hp = the PC's luck just ran out!) So having got in one good hit against PC A (who is now down) why not try the same against PC B (who is still up)?

Whereas if hp are treated as a real thing in the game, then the monster knows that it can't kill on a single hit and has to whittle away hp; and it knows that someone who is downed can be revived via even a modest "hp infusion". In this sort of game killing of downed foes before starting to ablate the hp of new ones might make more sense.